Axiology primarily refers to the ‘aims’ of the research. Axiology is the study of value or, more adequately, theory on the nature of value. In simple terms, axiology focuses on what do you value in your research. Axiology studies also value judgments. It is concerned with evaluating the role of the researcher in all phases of the process.
For example, what do we consider to be good or bad, right or wrong, beautiful or not, what do we value? Another axiological issue is what values might result from, or be the outcome of, our research? Axiology often asks questions about the extent to which our research can be totally neutral, or does our researcher opinion come into play, and our personal values shape how we conduct and write up our research? Also, should our research be seeking merely to understand what we are studying, or should we be studying something with a goal of changing society for the better? That’s an axiological question. And if we wanna change society, what do we consider better? In other words, what do we value? Would it be more economic equality, better health, deeper relationships? These are all axiological issues. Sometimes, researchers and writers are pretty obvious about this, but not always. Martin Buber is a guy who’s a communication philosopher, and he’s been very obvious about this. He talked about an ethical approach to communication that contrasted with a more mechanistic approach. So he talks about I-It, meaning I am a person, but you, it, are an object, but we really should strive for, as often as we can, I-Thou communication, where I am important in the communication, but you, you’re a though, you’re also important, you have inherent dignity, you’re special as a human being, and I should treat you that way, we should connect through dialogue. See, he has an explicit value for other people, and it’s going to shape the way he does his research. So when I first got exposed to epistemology, ontology, and axiology, and began to take it seriously, I developed a much more sophisticated reading of the research that I was exposed to. I didn’t see them all as separate and independent pieces, I saw them all as having similar or different kinds of assumptions that informed their approach.
More articles on: